Probably because Israel violated the ceasefire earlier this year (that was a sham from the beginning) that lasted from January to March. The first phase of the ceasefire saw an exchange of hostages, but then the Israelis refused to move on to the second phase and broke the ceasefire by bombing Gaza in the middle of the night, killing over 400 Palestinians in one day, including over 200 children. [0]
Not to mention the fact that Israel just killed a top Hamas negotiator in Doha, Qatar only a few weeks ago. [1] How can you negotiate with someone who just killed your negotiator?
> Probably because Israel violated the ceasefire earlier this year (that was a sham from the beginning) that lasted from January to March. The first phase of the ceasefire saw an exchange of hostages, but then the Israelis refused to move on to the second phase and broke the ceasefire by bombing Gaza in the middle of the night, killing over 400 Palestinians in one day, including over 200 children.
Israel has been rather consistent that a permanent ceasefire will only happen when Hamas effectively surrenders and gives up power. Hamas had also refused to continue releasing hostages which effectively ended the ceasefire(as the terms of the second phase were never finalized).
> Not to mention the fact that Israel just killed a top Hamas negotiator in Doha, Qatar only a few weeks ago. [1] How can you negotiate with someone who just killed your negotiator?
I suppose when attempting to negotiate the surrender of Hamas if the negotiators refuse to surrender after having clearly lost a war they started then eliminating the current negotiators may result in their replacements being more likely to capitulate. That seemed to work out with Hezbollah at least.
>I suppose when attempting to negotiate the surrender of Hamas if the negotiators refuse to surrender after having clearly lost a war they started then eliminating the current negotiators may result in their replacements being more likely to capitulate.
So how exactly do you negotiate with genocidal terrorists that refuse to surrender despite having clearly lost a war? There certainly isn't an easy solution here.
> The point is that surrender is something that has to be negociated.
It actually doesn't have to be negotiated, one side can simply make a demand for surrender with their terms and then apply military pressure until capitulation. This is largely what happened with Germany/Japan in WW2.
> By organizing boring meetings with negociators and never killing them.
If it's clear the current negotiators/leaders will never surrender then there is arguably no benefit in keeping those particular negotiators/leaders alive. Once an organizations leadership tree is wiped out a few levels deep there's a decent chance you will get negotiators/leaders that will eventually capitulate to the demands(i.e. like what happened with Hezbollah).
> Well Israel's current solution is to impose famine and genocide on the civilian population.
There is no credible evidence that there is famine or genocide occurring in Gaza. Obviously the situation in Gaza is bad but that's to be expected for a war.
> This thread is literally about an article in which it is outlined that there is indeed a famine in Gaza.
It's not credible however[0]. There have been many claims without appropriate evidence for a while[1] and those involved tend to be antisemitic individuals interested only in pushing a specific narrative regardless of the facts on the ground.
As opposed to the first source you posted which is the text of a sky news interview with Hillel Neuer
From wiki
"Neuer was selected as one of the "top 100 most influential Jewish people in the world" by Israeli newspaper Maariv,[9] and by the Algemeiner Journal in 2017. He is an outspoken defender of Israel[10][11] and critic of the UN's human rights councils' actions.[12]"
So he's not pushing a pro-Israel view? How can you dismiss one source with claims of bias by providing a source that is also bias but of the opposing view?
I want to point out that I don't think sources should be ignored merely due to bias. You do though so I await your defense
I don't think I ever claimed his view was neutral. Groups on both sides putting out analysis papers will likely have some degree of bias.
> How can you dismiss one source with claims of bias by providing a source that is also bias but of the opposing view?
I mostly consider them unreliable because they have a history of putting out reports that push a narrative that simply isn't in line with reality and tend to have major methodological issues. They also have a history of putting out wildly inaccurate future projections.
> I want to point out that I don't think sources should be ignored merely due to bias. You do though so I await your defense
There's two aspects, one is the history of methodologically problematic analysis put out by these organization like those involved in the IPC report along with other UN organizations.
The other is that individuals involved in the reports tend to hold extremist viewpoints that point to a clear motivation for pushing narratives regardless of the reality on the ground.
UN officials in particular have a rather common habit of straight up lying about facts(and even what their own UN reports say in regards to starvation risk) and when caught they simply try and justify their lies[0] because those lies supposedly help their cause.
The most detailed responses/rebuttals to these IPC reports would generally be reports that COGAT is involved in producing[1][2]. While COGAT is arguably biased they do put out sufficient data/references for one to validate their analysis, groups like UN Watch do likely source from these reports. Keep in mind there's not many organizations that have access to data on the ground, COGAT likely has the most complete view while humanitarian organizations likely only have data specific to their own operations. By cherry picking data(often non-public data), ignoring counterfactual data and largely excluding COGAT data the IPC report authors can paint a false narrative more easily.
Claims of famine citing the UN/IPC are normally appeals to authority, whose convincingness depends on the credibility of the authority.
The UNWatch article isn't that - you can easy verify their points yourself. I.e. by IPC's own definition and Hamas' own casualty data, we're about three orders of magnitude short of meeting one of the requirements of a famine. IPC is just ignoring their own definition and declaring a famine anyway.
That wasn't me. I would say the question of how often UN officials lie is rather moot. If it follows from plain facts and basic math that the famine claim is false, we don't really need to argue about the credibility of those making the claims.
> If Israel believes they are genocidal terrorists that won't surrender why are they even negotiating?
One reason would be to try and get back as many hostages as possible, regardless of whether or not the terrorists surrender.
> You either negotiate or you attack the people you want to negotiate with. Not both
One can still attack an enemy while negotiating with them, I see no reason one would have to pick one option over the other.
It's not at all uncommon to negotiate with ones enemies while you attack them(including trying to kill them). If Israel explicitly gave the enemy representatives they were negotiating with diplomatic immunity then one might have a better argument against attacking those with immunity, but that was AFAIU not the case here.
> How can you negotiate with someone who just killed your negotiator?
The only other option seems to be that Israel is about to destroy the rest of Gaza City, and take out the last major location that Hamas controls. So their options are to either accept the peace plan, or die.
I don't think Israel cares that much which choice Hamas choses. But yeah accepting this peace deal sounds like it it quite obviously the mostly likely option to help prevent all the buildings that are about to be destroyed and people who will be killed.
No. They couldn't come to an agreement with Hamas.
> [Israel] broke the ceasefire
No. The ceasefire was over - it was time limited. The 2nd phase was supposed to be release of the rest of hostages. Hamas wouldn't release the hostages.
Let me take a guess. You are against Trump's plan as well and think Hamas should refuse it.
You can't comment like this on HN. Several of your comments in this thread have broken the guidelines. We've asked you before to avoid using HN for ideological battle. Please take a moment to read the guidelines and make an effort to observe them, especially these ones:
Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive.
When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. "That is idiotic; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3" can be shortened to "1 + 1 is 2, not 3."
Please don't fulminate.
Please don't use Hacker News for political or ideological battle. It tramples curiosity.
I can't believe I'm weighing in on a political thread, but the "deal" is very one sided. It offers very little for the Palestinians in terms of creating their own country and ability to self govern and gives Israel pretty much everything they want including some control over Palestine.
The current "peace deal" is terrible for the Palestinians. No other country would sign it either.
Yes they did. The jews were ready to accept the UN plan in 47. If the palestinains agreed the nakba would have been the end of this conflict. Instead the Palestinians chose governments that attacked israel. Even when Israel left gaza after the second intifada the gazans continued to launch rockets at tel aviv.
In context, of course pro Zionist leaders such as David Ben-Gurion were strongly in favour of a plan that saw a two-thirds majority Arab population pushed back into 43% of the territory, at the time such leaders were advocating acceptance of that plan as their ideal stepping stone to to future territorial expansion over all of Palestine.
Naturally the opposing Arab leaders were against a plan that saw a majority population receive less land, a plan that was being put forward by people openly stating it was a first step to total control of everything.
> Naturally the opposing Arab leaders were against a plan that saw a majority population receive less land, a plan that was being put forward by people openly stating it was a first step to total control of everything.
Keep in mind that there is a state with a Palestinian majority population that came out of the division of the territory under the British Mandate system, that country of course is Jordan.
> It's a shame a better deal could not have been struck for the benefit of all the people with a millennium plus history in the Levant, of all faiths.
I think it's pretty clear that the Arab leaders at the time would never have accepted an independent Jewish state regardless of how fair the land division was.
Most people wouldn't accept a new country being made over their heads within their land. Jewish people had largely not been there since Roman times. That's a long, long time. Would you accept a country being founded in yours for, say, the Roma? I highly doubt it.
> Most people wouldn't accept a new country being made over their heads within their land. Jewish people had largely not been there since Roman times.
There were plenty of Jews living on the land by the time of Israeli independence, land which had largely been acquired by purchases from Arab landowners.
> Would you accept a country being founded in yours for, say, the Roma? I highly doubt it.
Palestine was never a country prior to Israeli independence so that's probably not a realistic comparison either.
Most of the land allocated to the jews was uninhabitable desert. You can count acreage but that doesnt really tell you anything about the value each side received. Im not going to act like the plan was a great deal for palestinians, but it was an choice they had and they spurned it in favor of a never ending war that they can not win.
> The indigenous people of Palestine did not start this conflict.
These arguments are not particularly helpful because you can easily make the case for either side being the indigenous people depending on how far you want to go back in history.
> They did not choose to be colonized by Jews fleeing persecution in Eastern Europe.
At this point the majority of Israelis were born in Israel and hold no other citizenship, so if you're suggesting the Jews all go back to Europe that isn't a realistic expectation, also many Jews were forced out of other middle east countries shortly after the founding of Israel. You can make these same arguments about many countries like the United States or Canada as well as being colonies that pushed out their indigenous people, but these arguments are not going to be particularly productive as nobody is expecting these countries to return all land to their indigenous populations either. By the way these Jews fleeing Eastern Europe prior to Israeli independence were largely purchasing the land from Arab landowners which is arguably better than them haven taken the land by force.
Germany and Japan also got to keep their countries in the end. What guarantees do the Palestinians have that they'll get to keep Gaza and not have it be overrun by Israeli settlers (who are already wreaking havoc in the West Bank)?
> Germany and Japan also got to keep their countries in the end.
Germany was split in two for many years. Ultimately they were able to keep their countries because the occupation forces were successfully able to largely de-radicalize those countries.
> What guarantees do the Palestinians have that they'll get to keep Gaza and not have it be overrun by Israeli settlers (who are already wreaking havoc in the West Bank)?
I suppose that would depend on the surrender agreement and whatever agreements are subsequently put in place, but the settler issue differs significantly between Gaza and the West Bank for various reasons. For example the issue of religious sites is a much bigger issue in the West Bank, there has been little desire amongst Israelis to settle Gaza compared to the West Bank. The security issues in the West Bank tend to also be more problematic due to proximity to major Israeli cities.
the deal is not with palestinians but with hamas (unless you say that hamas represents palestinians). palestinians at large and palestinian authority support this deal.
Because it doesn't move the situation any closer to liberation of their people and their homeland.
They have been willing to constantly fight, and constantly keep getting killed by an enemy with overwhelming advantages, for their cause for two years now. Why would you assume that being able to escape with their lives is suddenly more important to them?
> They have been willing to constantly fight, and constantly keep getting killed by an enemy
Thats not true at all. Most people in palestine do not want to throw their lives away for nothing. Most of them want peace. Its only Hamas that would apparently prefer to get killed and have gaza be flattened instead of accepting peace.
The question I responded to was: "why is Hamas refusing a peace deal that ends all this and lets them escape with their lives?" Your responding that what I wrote is "not true at all" makes no sense in the context.
> They have been willing to constantly fight, and constantly keep getting killed by an enemy with overwhelming advantages, for their cause for two years now
Hamas has. If you put this deal to a plebescite in Gaza, do you really think they'd vote for more war?
Yes, Hamas (and all the other resistance factions that are active in Gaza). The question I responded to was: "why is Hamas refusing a peace deal that ends all this and lets them escape with their lives?" My answer was perfectly within the scope of the original question.
> If you gave the jewish resistance in Nazi Germany the same deal, would you be just as suprised if they continued to fight for total freedom?
Yes?
Just so I understand the hypothetical, the Jewish resistance in Nazi Germany (not really a singular thing, but I'll read this as the French Resistance and ghetto leaders) are offered amnesty, i.e. an end to the Holocaust, in exchange for literally anything? Why wouldn't they take it? It's literally a choice between life and death.
And again, it gives time for regrouping, clear thinking, rallying support. Turning it down seems to scream that the offer, in this hypothetical an end to the Holocaust, in our timeline a ceasefire, isn't actually that important. At that point, both sides are choosing to fight. European Jews didn't choose the Holocaust. I don't think Palestinians are choosing this war, but if they turned down a peace deal, they by definition are.
I mean, it moves the situation closer to not living in war and famine? Also the idea of amnesty to all Hamas members looks pretty generous to me - Nazis didn't enjoy the same privilege
> I mean, it moves the situation closer to not living in war and famine?
And then what? Look at the West Bank to see what happens when you don't resist the occupation and fully cooperate with the colonial state. You get slowly cleansed anyway.
> Also the idea of amnesty to all Hamas members looks pretty generous to me
Israel specializes in assassinations and has a history of relentlessly pursuing those it deems its enemies. If you were a Hamas fighter, your choice would be to either die fighting for a purpose, or be killed in exile without a purpose anymore.
The Israelis (and their suppliers) are the ones with the power to end it. They have chosen this. There are actually other avenues you know. This is entirely on them.
Like, not at all? They tried to withdraw from Gaza, and preferred to educate their population on living under daily rocket attacks just to avoid waging a war in Gaza. It all dragged on with no hope for a permanent peace and culminated in the October massacre.
Hamas on the other hand does indeed have the power to end it all - if not with all their dreams and wishes being fulfilled - which is a pretty outrageous expectation for the losing party
They are not Western, but they are a democracy for sure. The extremist minority got into the government by democratic mechanisms - happens in Western democracies too from time to time
Tried to withdraw? Seems like they like things just how they are. (Well except for the part where they want the Palestinians to give up any claims to the land that was stolen from them and just evaporate.)
The result of Israel:
- subjugating Palestinians in a ghetto, controlling everything that goes into and out of Gaza
- preventing Gazans from having their own power, airports, piers, and more, and
- "putting them on a diet", and
- propping up Hamas to have a plausible enemy to fight against in Gaza, and
- occasionally "mowing the lawn" to kill hundreds (or thousands)
is the creation of anti-Israel hatred. Once that boils over, you get what happened, which is the murder and kidnapping of innocent people in Israel.
> Hamas on the other hand does indeed have the power to end it all - if not with all their dreams and wishes being fulfilled - which is a pretty outrageous expectation for the losing party
Maybe instead petition Netanyahu et al to stop committing a genocide? They can stop flattening Gaza and starving Gazans at any point. They hold all the cards.
They could stop the current stage of the war, sure. They couldn't achieve peace though - basically stopping the operation would mean reverting to pre Oct. 2023 state with Israel trying to improve their security (aka "blockade") so that it doesn't happen again. Given the recent advances in military practice I would imagine that would involve lots of drones flying over Gaza 24/7 and I can already hear what international organizations are saying about that.
Hamas on the other hand has the keys for the permanent peace. Not implying that the way current operation is waged is justified though.
Israel can become one state with democracy for all its residents. That's the real answer.
> I can already hear what international organizations are saying about that
What will they say? (And would they be wrong?) Imprisoning Palestinian refugees is definitely a human rights violation.
> Hamas on the other hand has the keys for the permanent peace
Not sure why everyone says Israel (the state with all the power in this relationship) is powerless. What do you propose Hamas do to ensure permanent peace?
>The Israelis (and their suppliers) are the ones with the power to end it
Israel cannot unilaterally end hostilities any more than Hamas can.
Peace requires two willing parties.
Israeli people need to remove Bibi the genocider and be willing to concede land and leave Palestine alone
Palestinians need to be willing to evict and eliminate Hamas, run the country in a non oppressive way, and leave Israel alone
Israel can end the genocide it is perpetrating, and then accept more death in a few years when Hamas feels like doing more marketing (which, fyi, is the point of their terrorism: Fundraising). Is that desirable or useful?
Please show me where Hamas has signaled in any way that they would leave Israel alone if Israel completely left Palestine alone. Right now neither side can even manage a token ceasefire. There's no trust, and there's no accountability.
The real question is this: How many dead people are either side willing to accept to work towards lasting peace?
Lasting peace, a solution to the Palestinian horror, requires people willing to give up legitimate grievances from the past. Are Palestinians willing to move on from half of their children starving to death? Lots of Israeli people were willing to protest their own government before October 7th to agitate for less Palestinian oppression. Hamas targeted some of those young adults for that.
> Israel cannot unilaterally end hostilities any more than Hamas can.
They absolutely can! For a moment consider the power differential in this assault. Do not equate Hamas' attacks with Israel's blockade, exploitation, starvation and war crimes of the entire Gazan population. The displaced Palestinians imprisoned in the Gaza ghetto don't have war planes, armed drones, and tanks, let alone nukes and billions and billions of aid from allies.
Also, consider Israel has a total blockade of Gaza. Nothing gets in or out without Israel's say so. And we haven't even talked about "the hostilities" of the expanding illegal occupation of the West Bank.
Israel can stop their genocide and starvation today. They can stop further occupying the West Bank today.
> Palestinians need to be willing to evict and eliminate Hamas, run the country in a non oppressive way, and leave Israel alone
Israel's flattening of Gaza has nothing to do with Hamas. You don't get to starve and murder everyone in Gaza because of Hamas. You don't get to commit genocide. (An intent stated many times by Israeli officials BTW)
> Please show me where Hamas has signaled in any way that they would leave Israel alone if Israel completely left Palestine alone.
Hamas existing or now is irrelevant to Israel starving everyone in Gaza and destroying every building, hospital, school, house, cemetery in it including all the farm land. This is rank inhumanity.
> Right now neither side can even manage a token ceasefire. There's no trust, and there's no accountability.
One side holds all the cards and it's not Hamas nor the civilians in Gaza. IF you want to talk about accountability, maybe the world should actually hold Israel responsible for its actions. Maybe we can get the Israelis to kick the genociders out of its government for a change? (Netanyahu, Smotrich, Ben Gvir for starters)
> Are Palestinians willing to move on from half of their children starving to death?
Wait--The Palestinians are blockading themselves?
> Lots of Israeli people were willing to protest their own government before October 7th to agitate for less Palestinian oppression. Hamas targeted some of those young adults for that.
Polling consistently shows Israelis are in favor of what's happening in Gaza.
What do you mean? Trump's plan to end the war, Israel has accepted it. Now Palestinians will probably refuse it. Why refuse the end of the war and the "genocide"?
It's like they demanded a country, but when the country was offered multiple times, they refused it because what they actually want is to destroy Israel and not build their own country.
Rhodesia was "destroyed", and the outcome was for the better.
Apartheid South Africa was "destroyed", and the outcome was for the better.
French Algeria was "destroyed", and the outcome was for the better.
When Israel gets similarly "destroyed", and it is no longer a supremacist colonial state, and the people who remain are living with equal rights, it will be for the better. Everyone other than colonists and white supremacists understand this. If yoru country was colonized by outside invaders, you would understand anti-colonial struggle perfectly well.
Just out of curiosity, what does "destroyed" mean in Israel case? Is this a situation, that can potentially lead to Israel ruled by Hamas and Hamas having a nuke and army, that can easily reach Europe? How is that "better"?
There is a reason why no one, except extremists (on both sides, both Greater Israel or whatever, or Greater Palatine) support one state solution.
Not a problem at all. South Africa's nukes were destroyed and/or handed over to USA prior to the dismantling of the state. The same can be done with Israel's nukes, and any other military gear that they wish to keep out of hands of the palestinian resistance.
And what if they say no? And what if they are willing to use every last one of them if needed to prevent their destruction and there is absolutely no way to convince them otherwise, other than to not destroy them?
Then what? They have 100+ nuclear weapons. They can't all be shot down.
You are demonstrating one case of reality denial that props the Palestinian to keep fighting Israel from generation to another, even though they've never been in a worse situation.
There are many other proponents of the Palestinian struggle, that would hate for them to surrender or just go elsewhere, because they need them to keep fighting. I'll name some examples:
1. The Muslim clerics promising them Al Aqsa, who look at the Jews self-rule as an historical insult to a place that should have been "Dar al-Islam";
2. The different movements and people of interest that are implanting nostalgic longing across the 4th generation Palestinian diaspora to a place they never visited and to a country that never existed;
3. Those Arab rulers, like in Egypt, that don't want the "Palestinian Issue" (their words, not mine) to go away because it nibbles at Israel;
4. Those with interests of self preservation, like King Abdallah of Jordan, who rules over a Palestinian majority and fears the moment they try to realize their national aspirations in his kingdom instead of in Israel;
5. Those like Greta and other who look to pick up a cause, and of course lets not forget those who just hate Jews.
6. Lest we forget the billionaires Palestinian leaders, like Arafat and Haniyea who amassed huge fortunes and lived lavish lifestyles on the back of the "Palestinian struggle";
7. All of those functionaries in the UN and elsewhere who feed off this huge machine of handouts in the form of UNRWA, the Red Cross and all those agencies that funnel money and goods to Palestinians wherever they are, keeping them fed and content so they can avoid assimilating and building a real future for themselves, while teaching in their agency schools a curriculum of hate towards Jews and Israel.
8. The Iranian mullahs who need a cause to rally their people, to keep their thoughts away from being thirsty, poor and oppressed.
All of those people making grand plans for the demise of Israel, while Israel just keeps getting stronger. No, seriously; the Israeli GDP per capita has surpassed that of the UK.
What's common to all of those groups that I mentioned is that none of them care about what becomes of the average Palestinian. 10,000 dead, 60,000 dead, it's all worthwhile if Israel suffers.
Golda Meir wisely said, "Peace will come when the Arabs will love their children more than they hate us". As long as those powerful interest groups are interested in keeping the Palestinian struggle alive, there can never be peace; and destroying Israel is just a dangerous pipe dream that kept the Arab world poor and beaten for 80 years now.
What an interesting historical stretch to call Jews "invaders" in Israel, when the entire place is riddled with Jewish history and artefacts dating back thousands of years.
While Rhodesia and South Africa were colonial experiments by people with no prior connection to Africa, that's not the case with Israel. Since the onset of told history there were Jews in that area.
Yes, many thousands of years ago the land was populated by Jewish peoples. Then Romans sacked Jerusalem and kicked them all out. The Eastern Roman empire never reversed that ban. After the muslim conquest of Levant in about 630 AD, caliph Umar ibn al-Khattab lifted the Christian ban on Jews entering Jerusalem some time later during his reign. After a millenium of mixing and slow but gradual conversion to the dominant socio-cultural muslim group, we know that the Jewish population of Palestine at the time (1917) that the British government initiated the process of handing over Palestine to jews in return for Lord Rothschild's money that they needed to keep fighting WW1 [1], was only about 7%.
Subsequent immigration of mostly European jews into Palestine, resulted in about 30% jewish population by the time Western powers decided to declare an independent Jewish-dominated state of Israel on top of Palestine in 1947.
The vast majority of the current jewish population of Israel are absolutely foreign invaders and their second or third generation descendants.
The party refusing any kind of deal are Israel since their goal is annihilation of Palestinians. Hamas were ready from day one for a deal, their goal (contrary to israeli narrative of course) was to negotiate prisoner exchange for the 1000s of Palesitnian prisoners held by israel (including children). This is still their goal along with ceasefire and complete withdrawal from Gaza.
> The party refusing any kind of deal are Israel since their goal is annihilation of Palestinians
First, there is no such thing as a Palestinian - that’s a made up identity to falsely claim the region as their own. Second, there have been five two-state solution offers in the past, that Israel was ready to accept. Leaders on the other side refused. Third, Hamas is not accepting the current deal that is on the table, and is incredibly fair (given the lopsided hostage/prisoner release that favors Hamas). Fourth, Israel had already withdrawn from Gaza - that was the status quo when Hamas got elected and began a decades long campaign of terrorism - remember the literal thousands of rocket attacks on Israel? Fifth, if Israel’s goal is the “annihilation of Palestinians”, why are the 20% of Israel’s population that would identify as such doing so well? Clearly this isn’t their goal, but just misinformation.
A quote from the Minutes of the Ninth Session of the League of Nations, 1922:
Colonel Symes explained that the country was described as "Palestine" by Europeans and as "Falestin" by the Arabs. The Hebrew name for the country was the designation "Land of Israel", and the Government, to meet Jewish wishes, had agreed that the word "Palestine" in Hebrew characters should be followed in all official documents by the initials which stood for that designation.
Haha. No. Hamas goal with October 7 was exactly this. To provoke an Israeli overreaction in order to derail the diplomatic recognition talks between Israel and the Saudis.
Hamas just underestimated how much it would actually cost. Or maybe they didn’t, who knows.
> the negotiators in Qatar who were supposedly working towards a ceasefire
Supposedly is the key word. Qatar has urged Hamas to accept Trump’s ceasefire terms publicly. But let’s not forget they welcomed and housed Hamas’s leaders, and funded them, for a long time prior to today. Qatar has a history of supporting other terror groups as well:
That's not true, if you’re referring to the Trump plan, as he contradicted one of the main points upon return to Israel. He selectively backed some part of it, which is not really “signing” on the same plan that was offered to other parties.
Also, what value has Netanyahu’s word? I mean, after blowing up a truce unilaterally, after killing negotiators, after all the corruption reckoning that is coming to him if/when out of office...
Whenever they've tried to agree to any peace deals in the past, what ends up happening is they make concessions and then Netanyahu turns around and resumes the war anyway.
Leadership of the political organisation, not all. However the military branch's leadership is/was in Gaza (like Yahya Sinwar and others who were killed)
You are honestly blaming the killing of 60,000+ Palestinians on Hamas for not accepting a Peace Deal (Israel didn't honor the last one months ago) only?
Assume it is a hostage situation, 2,000,000 Hostages. Israel has killed 60,000+ hostages trying to rescue hostages. Starvation also counts as killings to me, but I supposed "Starved" is less direct than "Shot"
Well, hows the "peace" in the West Bank, where there's no Hamas? Israel has proven in both the West Bank AND Gaza that they do not care whether you violently resist or you attempt to be peaceful. You WILL BE REMOVED from your land, dispossessed of everything you own, because growing the Israeli people is more important than your life, your rights, your anything.
That is, technically, at odds with the truth, and morally, a transparent attempt at misinformation, please read the comments above you, or use “the internet”.
Because Netanyahu is already saying he wouldn't comply with the deal that he's already agreed to, and isn't treating it as a peace deal.
> While Netanyahu agreed to the plan on Monday, he already appears to be pushing back on several of its terms.
> In a video posted on X, he insisted that the IDF would would be able to remain in parts of the territory and that Israel would 'forcibly resist' the establishment of a Palestinian state.
Killing 736 Israeli civilians, 79 foreign nationals, and 379 Israeli military and security personnel, and kidnapping an additional 250 civilians is not, by any fathomable definition, genocide. It is a war crime for sure, but it's not genocide.
Edit: the post I was replying to was claiming Hamas/the Palestinians perpetrated a genocide in Israel. It has since been edited to be a completely different thing.
> Killing 736 Israeli civilians, 79 foreign nationals, and 379 Israeli military and security personnel, and kidnapping an additional 250 civilians is not, by any fathomable definition, genocide. It is a war crime for sure, but it's not genocide.
I think the evidence is quite overwhelming that Hamas had clear genocidal intent, even if they did not have the means to accomplish that intent.
Something I try to explain to people is that HAMAS tries to kill civilians, but fails at achieving their goals, meanwhile Israel tries to avoid killing civilians, but fails to achieve that goal.
One of these is better than the other.
Weirdly, many people disagree over which one that is.
> How could one cause a famine accidentally, without intent to murder civilians?
There isn't credible evidence of a famine in Gaza. I'm not saying things are great(it is a war zone after all), but they certainly haven't gotten that bad. Look at pictures of Palestinians on the street in Gaza and compare them to pictures of people in countries where there is actual famine, they look nothing alike.
Maybe so. Genocidal intent is not genocide, by any stretch of the imagination. The shooter at the UK synagogue would love to be able to kill every last Jewish person in the world. That doesn't mean he committed genocide when he killed those 2 people and injured 4 others.
I think you are mixing up genocide and the acts that are committed in furtherance of genocide.
Genocide is legally a set of acts committed with the intent to destroy a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group.
So yes, what Hamas did on Oct 7 was not genocide, and similarly what Israel does on any given day in Gaza is not genocide. Rather they are both part of ongoing campaigns that arguably are genocide.
This is patent absurdity. What Hamas did on October 7th was an atrocity and a war crime. Many of the perpetrators, and of Hamas military leadership, would be very happy to be able to commit genocide against the people of Israel, and maybe even Jewish people in general.
However, there's no such thing as "unsuccessful genocide". Wanting to commit genocide and even terrorist bombings which target the population you'd like to exterminate are not genocide. To be committing the crime of genocide, you have to actually be in a position where you are actively displacing or exterminating a population.
Israel is committing genocide in Gaza since October 7th, because they are actively working towards a goal of eliminating the Palestinian population from the Gaza territory, or at least from the majority of it. They have already achieved a part of the genocide. They're not going all scorched earth and killing by the millions for the same reason they're not launching one of their illegal nukes in Gaza: they fear international reaction if the move is too sudden and overwhelming.
Hamas, by contrast, is not committing genocide in Israel, because it's not actively killing or starving or displacing any part of the population of Israel. I'm sure Hamas would love to do that, but it's a simple obvious fact that they're not succeeding. This is like claiming that Al Qaeda has an ongoing campaign of genocide of the West, because of 9/11 and some other attacks on, say, British troops.
> They do not value their own lives [...] If the Palestinians valued their own lives
You can't post slurs like this to HN, no matter which people you have a problem with. No more of this, please, regardless of how divisive the topic and how justified the strong feelings about it are.
> Israel values the lives of their hostages above all else and will try to rescue them no matter the cost.
Then why did the Israelis violate the ceasefire in March earlier this year, after they refused to move on to the second phase which would've seen the release of more of the hostages? They broke the ceasefire by killing 400 Palestinians in one day, including over 200 children. [0] Conveniently Netanyahu used it as an excuse to get out of a court appearance for his corruption trial the next day.
On the other hand: how idiotic would they have to be to believe the Israelis will let them escape with their lives, given all the evidence to the contrary?
Can someone provide a realistic answer?